Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna declined to quash an FIR alleging forgery and use of a forged, registered Will, holding that pending probate proceedings testing the Will’s validity do not bar a parallel criminal investigation into allegations of fabrication and wrongful use of documents. The Court dismissed the petition seeking to halt the criminal process at the threshold, finding no ground to interfere with the FIR at this stage. The dispute centres on a deceased person’s registered Will, relied upon in probate proceedings, which is alleged by the complainant to have been forged and used to claim rights over the estate. The Court observed that allegations of forgery and document fabrication constitute independent criminal offences, distinct from civil adjudication.

The petition was filed by a family member of a deceased testator seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences relating to forgery and use of forged documents. The dispute arose from a registered Will executed by the deceased in 2011, under which his mother and sister were beneficiaries, excluding his wife and son. After the testator’s death, probate proceedings were initiated for grant of letters of administration. The wife and son contested the Will, alleging that it was forged, and sought examination of handwriting and signatures through expert evidence.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma's Challenge To Lok Sabha Speaker’s Unilateral Constitution of Inquiry Committee In Impeachment Motion

During the pendency of the probate proceedings, the son obtained a private handwriting expert’s report alleging mismatch of signatures and thereafter filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery, impersonation, and conspiracy. Acting on an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate directed registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. The petitioner challenged the Magistrate’s order and the consequent FIR, contending that the dispute was purely civil in nature, that the Will was already under adjudication in probate proceedings, and that reliance on a private expert opinion was insufficient to justify criminal investigation.

While examining whether registration of the FIR was justified, the Court observed that “merely because the issue of validity of the Will is subject matter of civil and probate proceedings, this by itself, cannot be a ground to stall the criminal process at the threshold.”

The Court stated: "Forgery, fabrication of documents and their use for wrongful gain are therefore, not mere matters of civil invalidity but constitute independent offences under the criminal law. Hence, civil adjudication regarding the validity of a document cannot preclude criminal prosecution where the ingredients of offences (such as forgery herein) are prima facie disclosed, as the two remedies differ in their objective, scope and standard of proof".

Referring to settled jurisprudence, the Court observed that “the ingredients required to be established in civil proceedings and criminal proceedings, even when arising from the same transaction, operate in distinct spheres.” It further recorded that “no mini trial can be conducted to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the Handwriting Expert’s opinion” at the stage of considering a petition for quashing.

The Court noted: "While in the probate proceedings, the genuineness of the Will has to be tested on the anvil of Section 68 Indian Succession Act, in accordance with Section 65 Indian evidence Act, and even if signatures are found to be genuine, it may still be invalidated; the allegations of forgery and use of a forged document as genuine, are distinct offences under the Penal Code and if established, attract penal consequences independent of the outcome of the probate proceedings".

The Court noted that the Magistrate had relied on allegations of conspiracy and preparation of a forged Will and had found that “a detailed police investigation was required for unearthing the truth of the allegations made by the complainant.” It was observed that an FIR is only the commencement of investigation and “if the allegations are not substantiated, it would be so concluded after investigations.”

The Court also referred to the principle that High Courts should not interfere with investigation where the FIR discloses cognizable offences, observing that “courts must not stifle legitimate investigation at the threshold.” The Court held that examining the genuineness of the Will, expert evidence, and alleged impersonation would require investigation and could not be conclusively determined in writ or inherent jurisdiction.

Also Read: Bar Associations Not “State” Under Article 12 As They Do Not Discharge Public Functions: Delhi High Court

The Court directed: “In light of the above discussion, it is held that there exists no ground for quashing the FIR at this initial stage. There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby, dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Mehta, Advocate, and Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Criminal), with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocate

Case Title: Babita Chopra v. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:341
Case Number: W.P. (CRL.) 2202/2024
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna